• 👋Hello, please SIGN-UP FOR A FREE account and become a member of our community!
    You will then be able to start threads, post comments and send messages to other members. Thanks!
  • 💪IronMag Labs® 30% Off Easter Sale👉www.ironmaglabs.com Coupon code: EASTER30🐰

Obama's newest executive order

Get Shredded!
hey hope all is well,
ha ha no I had some major back issues I'm still recovering from and a shoulder issue as well I haven't touch a weight since September 7. can't work out until May 2017, but I still go to the gym everyday and do light cardio and physical therapy. i'm 185 lbs. haven't been 185 since I was in my teens.
1314a043fa7e35d3215f8b282aac89ac.png

d4721bede12f0992c8f76bcf2b223d56.png


Still lean AF!

Still running Test and HGH?
 
what do you disagree on with in the article I posted from zero hedge? did they get some facts wrong or something?

I wish you would post more on here swiper, love reading and listening to what you have to say
 
what do you disagree on with in the article I posted from zero hedge? did they get some facts wrong or something?

The spin in the headline and the article makes you believe this is a sneak attack by Obama (all by his evil self?) to impose a new "Ministry of Truth" that will run roughshod over the 1st amendment. None of that stands up to the facts but those are kinda scarce on Zerohedge.

Not sure how interested you are (well, you did post the article) or how much time you wanna spend on the subject, but if so...

The votes:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/h593
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s159

The original acts for "Countering Foreign Propaganda" introduced way back in March and May by bipartisan cosponsors:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2692
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5181

The larger appropriations bills had the original acts folded into them. There's nothing unusual or sneaky about it in this case -- the GOP-led committees made the changes since support was bipartisan and overwhelming. Standard congressional sausage making.

Who voted against the bills? Just 24 Dems and 6 Reps in the House, and 4 Dems, 2 Reps, 1 Independent in the Senate. That list includes the most ideologically far-Left Dems (visible on the voting map) and... Bernie Sanders. If you happen to oppose this legislation it's worth considering which lawmakers represent your views most accurately.

A better article than the blog about the pros and cons of this bill and whether it can unconstitutionally trample the 1st amendment (spoiler: it can't):

http://www.networkworld.com/article...tering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act.html

A good exposé of Zerohedge:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog
 
ha! yes of course.

test 250 mg ew
5iu ed gh
50 mg proviron ed
.5mg Adex twice a week
40 mcg clen daily (working my way up).
Wow, that has to be the lowest dosages of testosterone your body has seen in decades! Is there such a thing as testosterone withdrawal symptoms? LOL!

I'm still recovering from and a shoulder issue as well
What happened to your shoulder?
 
The spin in the headline and the article makes you believe this is a sneak attack by Obama (all by his evil self?) to impose a new "Ministry of Truth" that will run roughshod over the 1st amendment. None of that stands up to the facts but those are kinda scarce on Zerohedge.

Not sure how interested you are (well, you did post the article) or how much time you wanna spend on the subject, but if so...

The votes:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/h593
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2016/s159

The original acts for "Countering Foreign Propaganda" introduced way back in March and May by bipartisan cosponsors:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2692
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5181

The larger appropriations bills had the original acts folded into them. There's nothing unusual or sneaky about it in this case -- the GOP-led committees made the changes since support was bipartisan and overwhelming. Standard congressional sausage making.

Who voted against the bills? Just 24 Dems and 6 Reps in the House, and 4 Dems, 2 Reps, 1 Independent in the Senate. That list includes the most ideologically far-Left Dems (visible on the voting map) and... Bernie Sanders. If you happen to oppose this legislation it's worth considering which lawmakers represent your views most accurately.

A better article than the blog about the pros and cons of this bill and whether it can unconstitutionally trample the 1st amendment (spoiler: it can't):

http://www.networkworld.com/article...tering-disinformation-and-propaganda-act.html

A good exposé of Zerohedge:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...behind-zero-hedge-wall-street-s-renegade-blog

The sneaky part was it wasn't reported by the mass media and this is something Obama wanted in the bill. that's how I interpreted it. it also mentioned that it was in committee and the Republicans passed it so I'm not sure why you think it's so biased.

and yes this is going to turn into the Ministry of truth just like to have in China. don't tell me you actually believe your government, do you?
 
Wow, that has to be the lowest dosages of testosterone your body has seen in decades! Is there such a thing as testosterone withdrawal symptoms? LOL!

What happened to your shoulder?

lol!

I went and saw my shoulder doctor and he said that my shoulder socket and bones are so worn out there's nothing to connect to do a shoulder replacement so he sent me to a specialist Who thinks I may have some kind of nerve damage in my neck that leaves my right shoulder numb and he thinks that's the reason why my shoulder socket in bones are so grind it down and worn out. I went and got the MRI on my neck and made an appointment to see him again. i'll know more information after my next doctor visit. I don't know what they could do if there's nothing to attach any screws or anything onto in my shoulder.
 
The sneaky part was it wasn't reported by the mass media and this is something Obama wanted in the bill. that's how I interpreted it. it also mentioned that it was in committee and the Republicans passed it so I'm not sure why you think it's so biased.

and yes this is going to turn into the Ministry of truth just like to have in China. don't tell me you actually believe your government, do you?

Actually it was reported by the mass media, lots of articles (including Zerohedge) back in the April/May time frame about it with the same concerns raised. Whether it was front page "news" or not seems to correlate with paranoia, though. The conspiracy nut sites all picked it up, certainly.

Also, I don't see anywhere in that article where it mentions the GOP or Republicans being behind it. Where did you see that? There's only a mention of an "R" lawmaker sponsoring it.

The Zerohedge spin is clear. A less misleading headline would "blame" this on Republican leaders of Congress since absolutely nothing gets moved through it without their say-so. All Obama can do is veto something at this point... what other influence does he have? And vetoes can be overridden.

But in this case over 90% of legislators supported it so it's thoroughly bipartisan, and if you're looking for resistance lawmakers then you have to admit it's mostly the far-Left and Sanders himself that are the "heroes" here if you believe the bill is a horrible mistake. I know that may cause some uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. And NONE of that perspective is in the Zerohedge article. You still think they're being informative and not propagandistic?

This isn't a question of believing everything the gov't tells you (I don't), it's one of figuring out what's actually happening instead of blindly accepting some sensationalist disinformation site. It MAY be possible this new "Ministry of Truth" will indeed morph into something that gags the free press and crushes dissent but there's nothing in the legislation to indicate that. And if it's clearly going to happen, why would 98% of the Republican lawmakers support it?

Meh... too much attention to what seems to me a non-issue here. But I do like figuring out which "news" sites are reputable or not and where their biases are... helps me avoid garbage info.
 
Actually it was reported by the mass media, lots of articles (including Zerohedge) back in the April/May time frame about it with the same concerns raised. Whether it was front page "news" or not seems to correlate with paranoia, though. The conspiracy nut sites all picked it up, certainly.

Also, I don't see anywhere in that article where it mentions the GOP or Republicans being behind it. Where did you see that? There's only a mention of an "R" lawmaker sponsoring it.

The Zerohedge spin is clear. A less misleading headline would "blame" this on Republican leaders of Congress since absolutely nothing gets moved through it without their say-so. All Obama can do is veto something at this point... what other influence does he have? And vetoes can be overridden.

But in this case over 90% of legislators supported it so it's thoroughly bipartisan, and if you're looking for resistance lawmakers then you have to admit it's mostly the far-Left and Sanders himself that are the "heroes" here if you believe the bill is a horrible mistake. I know that may cause some uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. And NONE of that perspective is in the Zerohedge article. You still think they're being informative and not propagandistic?

This isn't a question of believing everything the gov't tells you (I don't), it's one of figuring out what's actually happening instead of blindly accepting some sensationalist disinformation site. It MAY be possible this new "Ministry of Truth" will indeed morph into something that gags the free press and crushes dissent but there's nothing in the legislation to indicate that. And if it's clearly going to happen, why would 98% of the Republican lawmakers support it?

Meh... too much attention to what seems to me a non-issue here. But I do like figuring out which "news" sites are reputable or not and where their biases are... helps me avoid garbage info.

i like zhedge and will continue reading it daily. I like their news. it's too bad you take the stance you do. your bias is clear.
 
IML Gear Cream!
Actually it was reported by the mass media, lots of articles (including Zerohedge) back in the April/May time frame about it with the same concerns raised. Whether it was front page "news" or not seems to correlate with paranoia, though. The conspiracy nut sites all picked it up, certainly.

Also, I don't see anywhere in that article where it mentions the GOP or Republicans being behind it. Where did you see that? There's only a mention of an "R" lawmaker sponsoring it.

The Zerohedge spin is clear. A less misleading headline would "blame" this on Republican leaders of Congress since absolutely nothing gets moved through it without their say-so. All Obama can do is veto something at this point... what other influence does he have? And vetoes can be overridden.

But in this case over 90% of legislators supported it so it's thoroughly bipartisan, and if you're looking for resistance lawmakers then you have to admit it's mostly the far-Left and Sanders himself that are the "heroes" here if you believe the bill is a horrible mistake. I know that may cause some uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. And NONE of that perspective is in the Zerohedge article. You still think they're being informative and not propagandistic?

This isn't a question of believing everything the gov't tells you (I don't), it's one of figuring out what's actually happening instead of blindly accepting some sensationalist disinformation site. It MAY be possible this new "Ministry of Truth" will indeed morph into something that gags the free press and crushes dissent but there's nothing in the legislation to indicate that. And if it's clearly going to happen, why would 98% of the Republican lawmakers support it?

Meh... too much attention to what seems to me a non-issue here. But I do like figuring out which "news" sites are reputable or not and where their biases are... helps me avoid garbage info.

if you could tell me the difference between Republican and Democrat you win because I can tell them apart, how about you?

Newsflash: I'm not a Republican.
 
Actually it was reported by the mass media, lots of articles (including Zerohedge) back in the April/May time frame about it with the same concerns raised. Whether it was front page "news" or not seems to correlate with paranoia, though. The conspiracy nut sites all picked it up, certainly.

Also, I don't see anywhere in that article where it mentions the GOP or Republicans being behind it. Where did you see that? There's only a mention of an "R" lawmaker sponsoring it.

The Zerohedge spin is clear. A less misleading headline would "blame" this on Republican leaders of Congress since absolutely nothing gets moved through it without their say-so. All Obama can do is veto something at this point... what other influence does he have? And vetoes can be overridden.

But in this case over 90% of legislators supported it so it's thoroughly bipartisan, and if you're looking for resistance lawmakers then you have to admit it's mostly the far-Left and Sanders himself that are the "heroes" here if you believe the bill is a horrible mistake. I know that may cause some uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. And NONE of that perspective is in the Zerohedge article. You still think they're being informative and not propagandistic?

This isn't a question of believing everything the gov't tells you (I don't), it's one of figuring out what's actually happening instead of blindly accepting some sensationalist disinformation site. It MAY be possible this new "Ministry of Truth" will indeed morph into something that gags the free press and crushes dissent but there's nothing in the legislation to indicate that. And if it's clearly going to happen, why would 98% of the Republican lawmakers support it?

Meh... too much attention to what seems to me a non-issue here. But I do like figuring out which "news" sites are reputable or not and where their biases are... helps me avoid garbage info.

who did you vote for the past 3 elections?

you seem like a liberal to me. which i won't hold against you ha ha
 
i like zhedge and will continue reading it daily. I like their news. it's too bad you take the stance you do. your bias is clear.

All good. My bias is towards science and reason, a skeptical approach to anyone doing argument by assertion... but it's a lonely position these days especially here in this country. I don't expect to convince anyone else.
 
All good. My bias is towards science and reason, a skeptical approach to anyone doing argument by assertion... but it's a lonely position these days especially here in this country. I don't expect to convince anyone else.

are you going to answer any of my questions I asked or are you just going to continue to ignore them?


what do you think about me liking zero hedge and trusting it as a news source?
 
if you could tell me the difference between Republican and Democrat you win because I can tell them apart, how about you?

Newsflash: I'm not a Republican.
Libertarian?

Sorry to hear about your shoulder. You post makes it sound like this is permanent?
 
Libertarian?

Sorry to hear about your shoulder. You post makes it sound like this is permanent?

yes .


I don't know yet if it's permanent I sure hope it's not. I see my doctor this month sometime I don't know when I got it written down. I don't know what my options are if there's no bones to connect anything to. I will update.
 
are you going to answer any of my questions I asked or are you just going to continue to ignore them?

what do you think about me liking zero hedge and trusting it as a news source?

Sure if you like.

It looked like you were bowing out of any real discussion -- you asked what I thought was inaccurate in the Zerohedge link and I answered with a bunch of citations plus a background article about a former writer there who excoriates their extreme slant from an inside perspective, giving some pretty strong reasons not to trust them. You ignored all that and went back to endorsing them, so... is there a point? Did you read any of the links?

Liking Zerohedge is fine -- they're at least entertaining. Trusting them is silly IMO if you care about fact checking. I'll give them a 3/10 on the journalism spectrum but they're just a sensationalist blog and not really "news", so no biggie so long as you don't take them seriously.

I've voted Democratic in the last three elections, not because I'm a Dem but because it's the lesser evil. The Republicans have transformed in the last several decades from a reasonable party devoted to sound but effective gov't and equal voting rights (!) to an extremist one largely divorced from facts and hellbent on dismantling the society we built out of the ashes of the Great Depression that unified the country, gave labor a voice through widespread unionization, instituted a more meritocratic education system, and grew a vibrant middle class with an increasing standard of living from the 30's thru the 70's. My "liberal" views would be merely "centrist" in the rest of the world since the spectrum has gotten so skewed to the right here. I'm probably somewhere between Eisenhower and JFK overall. But Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Reagan would be considered blazing liberals today compared to how far off the deep end conservatives have gone.
 
Sure if you like.

It looked like you were bowing out of any real discussion -- you asked what I thought was inaccurate in the Zerohedge link and I answered with a bunch of citations plus a background article about a former writer there who excoriates their extreme slant from an inside perspective, giving some pretty strong reasons not to trust them. You ignored all that and went back to endorsing them, so... is there a point? Did you read any of the links?

Liking Zerohedge is fine -- they're at least entertaining. Trusting them is silly IMO if you care about fact checking. I'll give them a 3/10 on the journalism spectrum but they're just a sensationalist blog and not really "news", so no biggie so long as you don't take them seriously.

I've voted Democratic in the last three elections, not because I'm a Dem but because it's the lesser evil. The Republicans have transformed in the last several decades from a reasonable party devoted to sound but effective gov't and equal voting rights (!) to an extremist one largely divorced from facts and hellbent on dismantling the society we built out of the ashes of the Great Depression that unified the country, gave labor a voice through widespread unionization, instituted a more meritocratic education system, and grew a vibrant middle class with an increasing standard of living from the 30's thru the 70's. My "liberal" views would be merely "centrist" in the rest of the world since the spectrum has gotten so skewed to the right here. I'm probably somewhere between Eisenhower and JFK overall. But Eisenhower, Nixon, and even Reagan would be considered blazing liberals today compared to how far off the deep end conservatives have gone.

you voted for Obama twice and Hillary, lmao. I think anyone who cast a vote for those two clowns should really consider who they voted for..

why would you vote for someone who lies straight to your face multiple times?


I know you're a socialist Democrat. it's OK not everybody makes the right choices some people just don't know any better.

you don't like zero hedge because it leans libertarian. if you take your ideology blinders off you may see it's more than just Democrat and Republican.

since you continue to talk about news sources and completely off the subject, where do you get your news from?
 
Last edited:
Fellas, Obama has not done everything correctly, but you gotta stop getting your news from social media. Do some research. Go to the gulf and ask the people about how a cluster F can affect the environment. The news has moved on to the next story but the problem still persists. That was the only one reported but big oil covers up other spills and the tax payer foots the bill down the road. Politicians have been selling out to special interests from the beginning of government. Trump and his crew have been playing mis-direction from the beginning. On his "thankyou" tour admitted he was BSing in a lot of his speeches and by law, everything he said in his campaign was "platform" and a candidate can not be held accountable for platform. He said a lot but look at his appointees. Any way you asked for, now you got it
 
Get Shredded!
since the spectrum has gotten so skewed to the right here.
Odd. I am almost half a century old, and it seems in my lifetime that the country, and the Republican party in particular, has relentlessly slid to the left, favoring bigger and bigger government, higher spending, and more "social programs."

I find it interesting how we can observe the same country and come to such diametrically opposite conclusions.

Both Democrats and Republicans today are far to the left of the two you mentioned, Eisenhower and JFK.

I suppose it would be difficult for you and I even to discuss issues of importance with two such radically different frames of reference.
 
. ^^^^^

why would you vote for someone who lies straight to your face multiple times?


since you continue to talk about news sources and completely off the subject, where do you get your news from?

.........
 
you voted for Obama twice and Hillary, lmao. I think anyone who cast a vote for those two clowns should really consider who they voted for..

why would you vote for someone who lies straight to your face multiple times?


I know you're a socialist Democrat. it's OK not everybody makes the right choices some people just don't know any better.

you don't like zero hedge because it leans libertarian. if you take your ideology blinders off you may see it's more than just Democrat and Republican.

since you continue to talk about news sources and completely off the subject, where do you get your news from?

.........

Not sure why you want to continue, but whatever. You don't seem open to anything you don't already "know".

You're making wrong assumptions about why I don't like Zerohedge even after I documented very specific ways in which they bugger the facts. You ignored all the evidence and links, then accuse ME of ignoring questions. I said in plain English that I'm not a Democrat but you ignore it. I'm discussing the issues and doing fact checking, inviting you to do the same, but you ignore that and accuse me of having ideological blinders. The blinders are actually on the person who can't discuss issues and ignores contrary data like a fanatic. You are projecting your own afflictions on me. You're not likely to see it though, bummer.

When you asked what particular facts zerohedge was getting wrong I thought there was a chance you were genuinely interested in an evidence-based and rational approach... and courageous enough to take in new data that may contradict previous assumptions. I'm gullible that way. But I also have the balls to admit when I'm wrong and this seems to be one of those times.

What is so threatening about being wrong?

FWIW: I get my news from sources all over, even wading into the right wing media horseshit cesspool occasionally for "research" on disinformation. Zerohedge is on the edges of that cesspool, thankfully not too deep. My main mostly-legit source is the Economist, in spite of their conservative kneejerk biases against regulations, minimum wage, and unions even when the evidence supports it. But I'll fact check anything I want to learn about; no single source will do the job.

Also, I'm disgusted with Hillary -- a corrupt liar and opportunist with limited talents. It was painful to vote for her. The problem is that her general election opponent was far worse -- an absolute con artist who wooed the working class voters but will fuck them in the ass with his policies (on the things that matter: economics, taxes, social programs, health care, education), and yet they have no understanding of it due to decades of indoctrination by the right wing noise machine. Reaganomics round #3: Meth and Crack. Maybe this time they'll learn something?

Libertarianism has its place, especially when it comes to overturning the failed Drug War. I always find it amusing to see people supporting legalization of marijuana, steroids, or other drugs (as in these forums right here) then turning around and voting Republican for the most regressive conservative policies on it. Just look at a map of states that have legalized recreational weed. Gonna be Kansas anytime soon? Not a chance.

This was too long... oh well.
 
Odd. I am almost half a century old, and it seems in my lifetime that the country, and the Republican party in particular, has relentlessly slid to the left, favoring bigger and bigger government, higher spending, and more "social programs."

I find it interesting how we can observe the same country and come to such diametrically opposite conclusions.

Both Democrats and Republicans today are far to the left of the two you mentioned, Eisenhower and JFK.

I suppose it would be difficult for you and I even to discuss issues of importance with two such radically different frames of reference.

We're the same age Malf. :)

I see what you mean about Republicans budgetary incompetence, but that's just an accident of their braindead economic policies combined with their desire for an ever-growing military. They grow gov't and explode the debt due to incompetence. This started with Reagan and supply side economics. He nearly tripled the debt in his 8 years while also growing the defense budget by 40%. Add the crash of '87 and the S&L bailout (due to botched de-regulation) to that and you have the elephant parade shit cleanup that Bush Sr. had to deal with... ironically the same guy who coined "Voodoo Economics" to describe Reagan's vision back in the 1980 GOP primary. So unfair.

In every other measure they've slid far to the right. In the '57 civil rights act they actually had *more* support for it in the congressional vote than the Dems. Can you imagine such an outcome today?

Here's a nice analysis of growing extremism in Congress caused mainly by the GOP, especially in the House. Check out the 3rd graph:

https://voteviewblog.com/2015/02/10/an-early-look-at-polarization-in-the-114th-congress/

Watch this '80 primary debate snippet (2.5 mins) between Reagan and Bush Sr. on the immigration issue and contrast with today. Has the GOP drifted leftward?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixi9_cciy8w

What did Eisenhower do in his two terms from '53 to '61 -- fight unions, cut taxes on the rich, engage in "supply size" nonsense? No, he had a Cold War to fight, an Interstate Highway to build, etc. Unionization was huge back then and the middle class was growing briskly. Top marginal tax rates on the rich were 91% when he entered office and then when he left... still 91%.

Here's a speech snippet from '53:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."


What Republican would say any such thing today?

Also, Nixon created the EPA. And in response to economic problems caused by the '72/'73 oil shocks, he instituted price controls like an ardent Socialist. He left top marginal income tax rates on the rich at 70% (JFK was the one who knocked them down from 91%). What Republican would do any of that today?

There's been tons of stuff written about the Tea Party revolution and the GOP shifting sharply rightward, forcing establishment figures like Orrin Hatch to do the same to avoid primary challenges from the extremists, and others like Arlen Specter to simply drop out of the party after saying the party had actually "left him". Those are just a few examples.

I'm open to any new evidence that shows contrary conclusions... so long as it's reality-based. If it comes from sources that advocate Pizzagate horseshit, Birther conspiracies, vaccine autism links, or any other anti-scientific nonsense... then yeah, not worth wasting time on.
 
Not sure why you want to continue, but whatever. You don't seem open to anything you don't already "know".

You're making wrong assumptions about why I don't like Zerohedge even after I documented very specific ways in which they bugger the facts. You ignored all the evidence and links, then accuse ME of ignoring questions. I said in plain English that I'm not a Democrat but you ignore it. I'm discussing the issues and doing fact checking, inviting you to do the same, but you ignore that and accuse me of having ideological blinders. The blinders are actually on the person who can't discuss issues and ignores contrary data like a fanatic. You are projecting your own afflictions on me. You're not likely to see it though, bummer.

When you asked what particular facts zerohedge was getting wrong I thought there was a chance you were genuinely interested in an evidence-based and rational approach... and courageous enough to take in new data that may contradict previous assumptions. I'm gullible that way. But I also have the balls to admit when I'm wrong and this seems to be one of those times.

What is so threatening about being wrong?

FWIW: I get my news from sources all over, even wading into the right wing media horseshit cesspool occasionally for "research" on disinformation. Zerohedge is on the edges of that cesspool, thankfully not too deep. My main mostly-legit source is the Economist, in spite of their conservative kneejerk biases against regulations, minimum wage, and unions even when the evidence supports it. But I'll fact check anything I want to learn about; no single source will do the job.

Also, I'm disgusted with Hillary -- a corrupt liar and opportunist with limited talents. It was painful to vote for her. The problem is that her general election opponent was far worse -- an absolute con artist who wooed the working class voters but will fuck them in the ass with his policies (on the things that matter: economics, taxes, social programs, health care, education), and yet they have no understanding of it due to decades of indoctrination by the right wing noise machine. Reaganomics round #3: Meth and Crack. Maybe this time they'll learn something?

Libertarianism has its place, especially when it comes to overturning the failed Drug War. I always find it amusing to see people supporting legalization of marijuana, steroids, or other drugs (as in these forums right here) then turning around and voting Republican for the most regressive conservative policies on it. Just look at a map of states that have legalized recreational weed. Gonna be Kansas anytime soon? Not a chance.

This was too long... oh well.

again where are the facts that were wrong in the article? I title you thought was misleading? come on....



if Hillary is so bad as you say why did you vote for her? don't you have any self-respect? I mean you actually when out of your house went to the polling place and casted your vote for Hillary. all that effort to do that that's fucked up for someone you think is such a bad person and politician.

I'll probably never understand the mind of a liberal, but someone did say it's mental disorder????
 
again where are the facts that were wrong in the article? I title you thought was misleading? come on....



if Hillary is so bad as you say why did you vote for her? don't you have any self-respect? I mean you actually when out of your house went to the polling place and casted your vote for Hillary. all that effort to do that that's fucked up for someone you think is such a bad person and politician.

I'll probably never understand the mind of a liberal, but someone did say it's mental disorder????

Meh. I already answered most of those questions but maybe you have reading comprehension issues. And what makes you assume I went to vote in person? More wrong assumptions piled on previous ones you've already made and won't acknowledge. At this point I think you're a troll, either that or just not very smart. I wouldn't've bothered with my original response had I known that. I'm always up for discussing these issues and learning something new, rearranging priorities as required, examining fallacies or misinformation and discarding any I can find, improving my viewpoints as a result. But doing so requires the other people involved to have some actual education about history, economics, science, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, etc. Engaging with you is only going to get vacuous insults like saying I have a "mental disorder"? Incisive, compelling arguments you have there. Bravo.

I'm not even really a "liberal", having plenty of viewpoints contrary to the Left when it comes to social programs, political correctness, feminism, nuclear power vs renewables, pacifism vs. military intervention, etc... but this country has veered so far to the Right in recent decades that our definitions of "centrist" has gotten warped as well, but in a global and historical sense that's the label I'd put on myself.

Anyway... this is pointless, no intelligent fact-based discussions to be had here. It's the Pit in an AAS forum anyway, lol, as tgunz pointed out.

Actually, let me ask one small political/philosophical question: Do you think the US military should be disbanded? Or if not, have its funding completely cut from the federal budget? It could obtain funding from private donations, perhaps "faith-based initiatives" as W. was so fond of... it could run bake sales to drum up cash, or depend on church donations. How would that square up with your beliefs?
 
Meh. I already answered most of those questions but maybe you have reading comprehension issues. And what makes you assume I went to vote in person? More wrong assumptions piled on previous ones you've already made and won't acknowledge. At this point I think you're a troll, either that or just not very smart. I wouldn't've bothered with my original response had I known that. I'm always up for discussing these issues and learning something new, rearranging priorities as required, examining fallacies or misinformation and discarding any I can find, improving my viewpoints as a result. But doing so requires the other people involved to have some actual education about history, economics, science, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, etc. Engaging with you is only going to get vacuous insults like saying I have a "mental disorder"? Incisive, compelling arguments you have there. Bravo.

I'm not even really a "liberal", having plenty of viewpoints contrary to the Left when it comes to social programs, political correctness, feminism, nuclear power vs renewables, pacifism vs. military intervention, etc... but this country has veered so far to the Right in recent decades that our definitions of "centrist" has gotten warped as well, but in a global and historical sense that's the label I'd put on myself.

Anyway... this is pointless, no intelligent fact-based discussions to be had here. It's the Pit in an AAS forum anyway, lol, as tgunz pointed out.

Actually, let me ask one small political/philosophical question: Do you think the US military should be disbanded? Or if not, have its funding completely cut from the federal budget? It could obtain funding from private donations, perhaps "faith-based initiatives" as W. was so fond of... it could run bake sales to drum up cash, or depend on church donations. How would that square up with your beliefs?

no comprehension issues, maybe a little ADD but I just scan through your posts for the most part.


sorry Im not at your level of intelligence. why do you have to rub it in and try to make yourself feel superior? does that make you feel better about yourself or something?



lol are you serious about your question regarding the military? go read the entire article 1 section 8. that's what I support.

are you embarrassed you voted for Hillary?
 
Back
Top